Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 212 (UTT)

SHANTI KHANDELWAL v. REETA PANDEY

2015-04-16

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner before this Court is a tenant in a premise, which is located at Ranikhet at District Almora. The landlord has moved an application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act (from hereinafter referred to as “Act No. XIII of 1972) on the grounds that she has bona fide need as well as comparative hardship, in her favour. Therefore, the accommodation be released in her favour. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the defendant/tenant that prior to filing an objection against the application under Section 21 of Act No. XIII of 1972, the landlord had given her a notice in which she had demanded a rent of Rs.3,000/- per month and said that unless she pays the rent, she would be liable to be evicted from the premises in question. Therefore, the contention was that since rent is Rs. 3,000/- per month, premise does not come under the purview of Act No. XIII of 1972, particularly, in view of certain exemption given to certain buildings under Section 2(1)(g) of Act No. XIII of 1972, which would include any building whose monthly rent exceeds to ‘2000/- per month is not covered under the purview of Act No. XIII of 1972. This contention of the defendant/tenant found favour with the Prescribed Authority and it was held that since the rent of the “Premises” is Rs. 3000/- per month it is outside the purview of Act No. XIII of 1972. The landlord filed an appeal against the said order before the District Judge. The learned District Judge, however, has came to the conclusion that there is no finding that the rent of the premises is more than Rs. 2000/- per month and it is not based on any evidence. Merely because a rent is demanded of Rs. 3000/- it could not mean that is the agreed and admitted rent between the parties. In fact in her reply, the tenant has clearly denied that she is liable to pay rent of Rs. 3000/- per month but the admitted rent between the parties is Rs. 150/- per month and as per the admission of the tenant that she is depositing the rent of the said premises before the court, which is Rs. 150/- per month. 3000/- per month but the admitted rent between the parties is Rs. 150/- per month and as per the admission of the tenant that she is depositing the rent of the said premises before the court, which is Rs. 150/- per month. The rent which is mentioned in Section 2(1)(g) of Act No. XIII of 1972 is the agreed or the admitted rent between the parties. If the landlord on her own demand the rent which is higher than Rs. 2000/- that itself would not take away the premises outside the purview of Act No. XIII of 1972. 3. The appellate court has rightly allowed the appeal and has remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for re-determination on the application under Section 21 (1)(a) of Act No. XIII of 1972. This Court finds no anomaly in the order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the learned District Judge. The Prescribed Authority clearly committed an error in falling to the trap of the preliminary objection raised by the tenant regarding the premises being outside the purview of Act No. XIII of 1972. No interference is called for in the order passed by the lower appellate court. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the Prescribed Authority shall proceed in the matter as expeditiously as possible without granting any undue adjournment to any of the parties.